Toxic Pollution

We have to talk about the bees

When I was three years old, I threw rocks at a hive until I was attacked by an enraged swarm of bees. It was one of my first memories and, despite the pain it caused me, I harbor no resentment toward bees, wasps, or bumblebees. It was my fault, my mother told me. They were just defending themselves. She taught me about their stingers, the queen bee, and the honey the produce. She told me how they feed on pollen and flower nectar, something a three-year-old can understand. With time, I learned that plants like coffee, apples, and cotton all rely on pollination by bees to reproduce. Twenty-five years ago, the bees didn’t seem to be in any danger — they were everywhere in my small town in the state of Veracruz, Mexico. Later, I moved to Mexico City, where people “reported” bees to the Civil Protection agency, and firefighters were called in to kill them. To prevent attacks, the city made life difficult for bees: in city parks, trees and flowers were sprayed with chemicals and pesticides, and water sources were dried up. That tactic has spread to agricultural fields around the world. Today, it is rare to see bees, bumblebees, or wasps flying around those spaces. The problem with pesticides The problem with bees became visible around 2006, when beekeepers and farmers in the United States reported losing 70 percent of their bee colonies during one winter season. Until that point, keepers would lose around 15 percent of their colonies during the coldest months. But the decline of bee populations wasn’t isolated that season. Various European nations also began reporting losses in the early 2000’s. According to a European Union report published in 2014, the region loses a third of its bee population every year. Unfortunately, little data exists for Latin America and efforts to monitor bee populations have only just begun. We know that beekeepers in Mexico have reported losses of between 30 and 80 percent of their colonies. Chile reportedly loses nearly half its colonies in the winter, a percentage that was previously between 15 and 20 percent. The Abejas Vivas (Living Bees) collective has recorded the disappearance of more than 10,000 hives in Colombia, and some regions of Argentina have reported the sudden death of nearly 90 percent of their hives. Why should we care? Seventy-five percent of our food production relies on pollinators—vertebrates and invertebrates alike—including bees. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) asked countries to adopt policies and food systems that are more favorable to pollinators. “We cannot continue focusing on growing our food production with processes based on the general use of pesticides and chemical products that threaten our crops and our pollinators,” said FAO Director José Graziano da Silvo. The sudden mass death of bees—known as Colony Collapse Disorder—is caused by a number of factors: an increasingly extreme and unstable global climate, the increased use of pesticides and fungicides, parasites like the varroa destructor (a mite that attacks bee hives), and the deterioration of ecosystems that bees rely on for food. Each of these factors creates stress for the bees. According to an article in Science, “exposure to chemicals and a lack of food can endanger bees’ immune systems, making them more susceptible to parasites.” Taking steps to protect bees In April, the European Union banned three neonicotinoide insecticides, which are commonly used for producing corn, cotton, and sunflowers. These pesticides are a risk to not just honeybees, but also to wild bees, other insects, and some larger animals. Of course the ban—a decision passed down by the European Food Safety Authority—has not made pesticide companies happy, but the European Union’s objective is critical: to guarantee food production in its member nations. In the United States, despite the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency has called for the protection of pollinators, the current government reversed the ban on certain insecticides in natural protected areas, a policy enacted by the previous administration. While scientists are working to better understand Colony Collapse Disorder, bees continue to die, putting our food security at greater risk. Many studies are focused on domesticated honeybees, whose columns are the easiest to count. But there exist around 20,000 species of pollinators—including wild bees, wasps, bumblebees, other insects, and vertebrates like birds and bats. There are few studies on the impacts of pesticides, changes in soil makeup, and climate variations on wild pollinating species, but these species are also likely to be at risk. Some plants depend exclusively on certain wild pollinators—plants like orchids, cacao (chocolate), coffee, and agave (tequila). That’s why we have to talk about the bees, and the other animals that help provide us with fruits, vegetables, and grains. Losing these species endangers the livelihoods of small-scale food producers, and a drop in food production would disproportionately affect society’s most vulnerable populations. What can we do? Twenty-five years ago, my mother planted flowers and told me that they would attract bees, which would ensure there would always be more flowers. Beyond the simple but meaningful act of sowing native flowers for local pollinators, we must demand that our food production systems respect the natural environment they depend on. And finally, it’s important to note that although bee deaths are caused by a number of different factors, human activity is the one thing they all have in common.     

Offering communities scientific support to stop mining’s damages

The Colombian town that’s taking on coal mining

“To leave for good is painful,” Flower Aria Rivera, 58, said with nostalgia. He doesn’t want to leave his land, his home. Doing so would mean leaving behind his identity, his story. Flower is from Boquerón, Colombia, a town of nearly 900 residents in the northwest department of Cesar. His ancestors, directly descended from Africans, were among the first inhabitants of his small town and many others in the region. They lived from raising cattle and growing rice. But that simple life is no more. The once-fertile soils of Boquerón have for more than 30 years been overtaken by large-scale coal mining operations. Since the corporations arrived, the town has been absorbed by coal and the many damages it leaves behind—like unhealthy levels of air pollution, and the depletion of water from rivers and other natural sources. The contamination had gotten so bad that, in 2010, the government ordered the mining company to relocate Boquerón’s residents. Eight years later, and that still hasn’t happened. On the contrary, new families have been arriving to Boquerón in search of the compensation that will surely be distributed when relocation finally does occur. “We want the mines to move, we want them to stop polluting our town,” said Flower, one of the most respected of the community, which has peacefully resisted despite the outbreak of skin and respiratory diseases. Flower is not a conventional leader. He speaks softly, while smiling. His deep black skin contrasts with his pure white hair. He’s sweet and calm and, above all, full of faith and hope. I met him two months ago when he participated with other leaders in a public forum co-organized by AIDA, Tierra Digna, CENSAT Agua Viva, University of Magdalena, the Environmental Justice Network of Colombia, and the Rosa Luxembourg Foundation. There, participants discussed what’s needed to enable Colombia to move its economy away from coal exploitation and toward alternative energies—those that respect the both climate and communities. “Coal has left us with nothing, only sadness,” Flower lamented. Colombia is the fourth largest coal exporter in the world. As such, the government has the ethical and moral obligation to reduce its carbon emissions, which have contributed to exacerbating the climate crisis. At AIDA, we believe in a clean energy future, and our work will continue to support the move towards a coal-free Latin America.   To close, I’d like to share a poem Flower wrote. In it, he expresses longing and love for his land, and his fear of the “damned black stone.”   A mi Boquerón   Boquerón del alma mía Terruño de mis entrañas Estoy perdiendo mi alegría Mis costumbres y mis esperanzas   Camino lento y con tristeza Con solo pensar en tu partida Historia mía, historia tuya Es como un llanto en noche buena   Quisiera morirme en tus recuerdos Donde viví muchas nostalgias De amores y vivencias de este mundo Cómo te llevo Boquerón en el alma   Voces de recuerdos se escuchan a lo lejos De un niño y un viejo Como añorando el pasado De Boquerón y sus hermosos tiempos   Partir sin regreso es doloroso Y un diciembre sin ti es morir Como regresar después a pajuil Cuando mis zapatos se han roto   Ya inerme camina un boqueronero Y la historia del tucuy, el manantial y la lomita está muriendo Hoy hasta el mismo cielo está llorando En gotas de agua convertidas en desespero   Quisiera regresar a las faldas de mi madre Como cuando niño me escondía debajo de ella Escucho a lo lejos la voz del patriarca Rivera Ángel Que desde su tumba como deseando una esperanza   Adiós diablito caño, palma y paralú donde di mi grito de libertad y olvidé mi esclavitud de mi raza palenquera y también de chambacú y olvidé por mis ancestros lo juro por ese cielo azul   Maldita piedra negra Que hizo cambiar mi historia Un humilde pueblo llora La funesta partida de toda una vida  

Understanding the true costs of mining in Latin America

Would you accept a business deal that offered you limited profits and infinite expenses? In Latin America, mining is strongly promoted as a source economic advancement. Governments tout extraction as a source of employment and funding for new hospitals, schools, roads and other infrastructure. Up to that point, it sounds like good business. But that’s only half of the story. What they don’t tell you about—in press releases or Environmental Impact Studies—is all of mining’s downsides, including impacts in perpetuity, environmental damage that persists for centuries or even millennia. Among mining’s many damages—rarely mentioned to the communities living alongside the projects—two stand out: Severe landscape modifications: for example, the excavation of an open-pit mine on a mountain or the filling of a valley with mining waste.   Contamination of water sources: for example, acid generation and the release of toxic metals into reach rivers, streams and other water sources; or the increase of nitrates and ammonia derived from explosives. In countries like the United States, damages are discussed in environmental assessment processes and legislation exists on both assessment and mitigation mechanisms. In Latin America, promoters of large mining projects often fail to understand that the long-term costs of these mega-projects far outweigh their benefits, and extend far beyond the mine’s active life cycle. After their closure and abandonment, open-pit mines need constant maintenance to minimize the risk of collapse (which never disappears). Water sources must be continuously monitored and treated to avoid toxic contamination. Who will pay for mining’s damages? It’s often difficult to know who must assume mining’s costs because it depends on several different elements: legal frameworks, institutional strength, and social factors. In many countries, governments require mining companies to build and install monitoring and remediation systems (wells, water treatment plants and drains, for example). In other cases, they are asked to pay for the operating costs of these systems for a period of time. The most demanding countries request remediation insurance (i.e. Reclamation Bonds), as well as a contribution to financial funds whose yields will be destined for such measures. This is the case of the Superfund, which manages the remediation of approximately 1,341 industrial sites across the United States. But even so, these policies often underestimate long-term costs, leaving tax papers to cover the rest of the expense. According to the Center for Science in Public Participation, the government would have to pay between $3.8 and $20 billion dollars to remediate the damages of metal mines in the western United States. In other countries, environmental waste from mining doesn’t receive much attention. In Canada—often cited as an example to follow by governments of the region—the Tulsequah Chief mine in British Columbia has been releasing untreated acidic waters since 1957. Mining in Latin America Although many Latin American nations have regulations related to mining, most lack specific laws establishing standardized procedures for monitoring and repairing its damages. Some nations, like Bolivia and Colombia, even lack a legal definition for Mining Environmental Liability or debt for environmental damage. Faced with weak regulation, the closure of a mine is accompanied by isolated and ineffective actions—like simply planting greenery in the affected area. Since it’s not clear who should be held responsible, the few monitoring and remediation actions that exist often end up being abandoned. Another important factor in the region is that environmental damage comes not just from legal mining, but also from illegal and—in the case of Colombia, where mining’s profits are being used to fuel conflict—even criminal mining activities. In Chile, environmental deterioration is largely the product of legal metal mines that have been abandoned. In Bolivia it is most often the result of artisanal mining and cooperatives. In Colombia, illegal and small-scale mining spills mercury into the rivers. In Peru, gold mining causes serious damage to human health and the environment. Throughout Latin America, mining’s historical damages can be found in mineral deposits that date from the colonial age… yet our resources continue to be exploited. Why prevention is key The permanent scars mining leaves behind require constant attention and a level of financing that is impossible to guarantee over time. And given their severity, it’s only possible to partially mitigate, not completely remediate, the most serious damages. That’s why we’re promoting prevention, rather than remediation. Hand-in-hand with local organizations and communities, we’re working to ensure that mining projects are subject to adequate evaluation processes before they’re authorized, and that the risks they imply for communities and the environment are well understood. We advocate for evaluation based on the best available scientific information; we ask that it contemplate alternatives and be carried out independently to guarantee objective results. If the analysis finds that a project will generate perpetual damages that cannot be adequately managed, it must be rejected. We want decision-makers to understand: hard rock mining is not always good business and it always causes environmental harm. We’ll continue working to ensure governments across Latin America understand that fact.  

Salmon farms in Chilean Patagonia approved without adequate environmental evaluation

A study commissioned by the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense found that more than half of the salmon farms currently operating in the Magallanes region of Southern Patagonia have generated a partial or total lack of oxygen in the water. Nine of those are located in naturally protected areas.  Santiago, Chile. A recent study, commissioned by the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), concluded that salmon farms located in the Magallanes region of southern Patagonia were authorized without the scientific assessments needed to ensure they would do no harm to marine life. “After twenty years of development in other regions, the salmon industry now seeks to expand to the country’s last virgin coasts, without the necessary precautions,” explained Gladys Martínez, senior attorney of AIDA’s Marine Program. “This study demonstrates that neither the companies nor that State have done enough to avoid in Magallanes the severe environmental damage already perpetuated in other regions of the country.” Chilean biologist Héctor Kol produced the report for AIDA, with the support of the Waitt Foundation, analyzing 261 salmon farm projects. Of them, a little less than half have already been authorized and the rest could receive their permits in the short- and medium-term. Of the 126 authorized projects, only 35 are currently in operation. The information produced on each project includes location maps and estimations of the amount of waste being discharged into the waters. The research shows that there are large differences in the quantity of waste that the government authorized for different subsectors of the same geographic areas, without any available explanation as to why. “This demonstrates a clear lack of scientific evaluation, necessary to guarantee the aquatic environment will be able to receive and process the authorized quantity of waste,” said Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA attorney. “More than half of the projects that are currently in operation have already generated a total or partial lack of oxygen in the waters, which seriously impacts marine life. In addition, at least nine of these oxygen-depriving projects are located in natural protected areas.” On May 22, 2017, AIDA filed a complaint before the Superintendency of the Environment requesting the investigation of damages caused by salmon farms in Magallanes, and the sanctioning of the companies responsible. Consult the report here. Interactive Map of Salmon Farms here.  More information on salmon farms in Patagonia is available here. Press contact: Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA attorney, +56973353135, [email protected]  

The Risks of the Salmon Industry’s Expansion in Chilean Patagonia

In Chile, the salmon industry has grown rapidly over the last 20 years, often at the expense of the environment, as has been made evident in the regions of Los Lagos and Aysén, where salmon farms have been firmly established. In search of more pristine waters, the industry is now settling into the country’s last virgin coasts, in the region of Magallanes, in Southern Patagonia. The expansion is taking place without scientific evidence or serious studies to establish the limits of production in terms of water capacity. This could have catastrophic consequences for local ecosystems, a fact that has sparked concern among environmental organizations. The purpose of this report, written for AIDA by the biologist Héctor Kol, with the support of the Waitt Foundation, is to contribute to the understanding of the current and potential damages that the industrial production of salmon implies for Magallanes. With this, it also seeks to contribute to the effective protection of the aquatic-marine environment of Patagonia, through the use of existing legal tools. The document presents a detailed analysis of the situation of salmon farms in Magallanes, responding to the following questions: How many exist? Where are they? How much do they produce and in what conditions do they do so? The study includes the farms already authorized by the government and those whose permits are in process. These were divided by geographical sectors to facilitate the analysis. The information on each project includes a location map and estimates of the amount of waste left in the waters, a key aspect to determining their impact on marine life. In this way, the author illustrates the magnitude of the problem. The report also contains basic information on the authorization process for this type of project and on the regulations that exist for the sector, as well as an annex with scientific and legal documents related to each project. The analysis leads to several important conclusions, including the following: Of the 261 projects analyzed, a little less than half have been authorized and the rest could receive their authorizations in the short- and medium- term. This demonstrates the rapid growth of the industry in the region and alerts to the need for constant monitoring, above all of the environmental and sanitary conditions in which they operate. Of the authorized projects only 35 (equivalent to 25 percent of the total) are effectively in operation. There exist, in a same geographic sector and without explanation, large differences in the production and quantity of waste that the government has authorized for different subsectors. This demonstrates the lack of a scientific evaluation that would guarantee the water’s capacity to safely receive the authorized amounts of waste. More than half of the projects currently in operation have generated a total or partial lack of oxygen in the water, which gravely affects marine life. Even more serious is that at least nine of them are located in protected natural areas. This demonstrates that, before operating permits were authorized, adequate studies were not conducted to ensure that the capacity of the waters would not be exceeded by the quantity of fish authorized for breeding. It also means that projects are not subject to appropriate environmental impact assessments. There is not environmental information available for all the authorized projects, which makes it impossible to determine with greater precision the potential damages that the salmon industry could cause in Magallanes.  In short, the study concludes that neither the State nor the salmon companies have done enough to prevent the damages already caused by the industry in other regions of Chile, which may now be repeated in one of the country’s most pristine natural areas. Consult and download the complete report (in Spanish) MAP - Salmon farms by geographic area  Red icons and polygons: projects with authorized aquaculture concession, approved Technical Project and available environmental assessment (104 in total). White icons and red polygons: projects with authorized aquaculture concession and approved Technical Project, but without RCA or environmental information available (22 in total). Yellow icons and polygons: pending projects, without approved aquaculture concession, but with approved Technical Project (10 in total). Icons and green polygons: pending projects, without approved aquaculture concession and without approved Technical Project, but considered viable by the SUBPESCA (124 in total). View larger map

Chilean chum: How eating salmon in the US hurts Patagonia’s coastal wildlife

After two years of vegetarianism, the Texan in me decided that an entirely plant-based diet was not going to work. The experience, however, taught me to consume meat ethically. Wherever possible, I now choose organic and sustainable “farm to table” meat and poultry. But when it comes to my favorite seafood—salmon— “farm to table” can take on a whole new meaning. Salmon is one of the most popular seafoods in the United States, and over a third of all salmon in the U.S. comes from Chilean salmon farms, which raise the carnivorous fish in off-shore enclosures along the Patagonian coast. Although salmon is healthy—it’s loaded with omega-3 fatty acids and B-vitamins—increased U.S. demand for salmon is having an unhealthy impact on Chile’s environment. These farms endanger delicate coastal ecosystems, contribute to oceanic pollution, and threaten marine life along the pristine Magallanes shoreline. Chile is the second largest global exporter of the fish, and salmon farming is one of the country’s largest industries. Today, that industry is growing. There are already over 100 salmon farms operating in the Magallanes and, as of March 2017, plans for 342 more were in the works. Driving this expansion is a booming worldwide salmon market. But even though the U.S. boasts a salmon industry of its own and wild-caught Alaskan salmon is considered some of the best in the world, U.S. consumers ate over 144,000 tons of farmed Chilean salmon in 2016, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. A fishy situation While fish farms are one solution to the many problems associated with overfishing, Chile’s unregulated salmon industry has serious environmental side-effects. These salmon farms disrupt their environments because overpopulated waterways create anaerobic conditions that deprive the local wildlife of oxygen. Often treated with excessive amounts antibiotics and pesticides, uneaten salmon feed and salmon feces also pollute coastal seafloors and introduce chemicals into the environment. Because they are not native to the southern hemisphere, salmon that escape their pens can disrupt local food chains. Salmon also frequently die in their enclosures, and the decomposing fish raise levels of ammonia in the water. Although research is still underway, scientists speculate that higher concentrations of ammonia, along with El Niño weather patterns and warming oceans caused by climate change, may be responsible for Chile’s recent “red tides.” These toxic red algae blooms kill coastal wildlife by the millions, inundating Chilean shores with dead fish (including salmon), birds, and whales. To fight back against this destructive industry and the harmful impacts of globalized seafood trade, AIDA filed a claim with the Chilean government expressing concern that salmon farms are harming local ecosystems. “We want to improve the way things are being done by aiming for sustainable development that will not ruin the fragile ecological balance of the Patagonian seas,” AIDA attorney Florencia Ortúzar said. AIDA also recently began a petition asking that Chile investigate the damage caused by salmon farming in the Magallanes and sanction those responsible. You can sign the petition here. New migration routes Today, the U.S. salmon industry practices catch and release: it is known for producing high quality fish, yet 80 percent of Alaskan wild salmon is traded away. So why does the U.S. produce some of the world’s best salmon, but consume some of the world’s most environmentally harmful fish? The answer, in short, is globalization. Filleting and de-boning salmon is a process too delicate to mechanize as in other meat industries. Because labor is cheaper in Asia, U.S. salmon is shipped to processing plants in China, which then re-distribute the processed fish across the region. While some of that salmon makes it back across the Pacific, the U.S. market is flooded with cheaper farmed salmon from around the world. Now, Chile’s industry “is facing competition from Canada and Norway,” according to trade analysis group Datamyne. After expressing concerns over high levels of antibiotics in Chilean fish, U.S. retail giant Costco decided in 2015 to stock Norwegian salmon instead, further muddying the waters in the U.S. salmon trade. To make matters worse, a study by conservation nonprofit Oceana concluded that nearly 43% of “wild” salmon sold in the United States was misidentified. While it is difficult to tell whether farmed salmon is mislabeled as “wild” during trade or once it shows up on the menu, lax labeling laws in the U.S. make it difficult to tell exactly where that salmon steak came from. So for seafood lovers like me, there may be few good options for eating salmon sustainably, besides taking up fly fishing. But for the sake of protecting Chile’s coastal wildlife, maybe it’s time U.S. consumers make their voice heard. If we’re going to import salmon from Chile, we should at least demand the country regulate its farms to be more environmentally friendly. Maybe it’s also time the U.S. salmon industry started keeping its catch in its own boat. Sign the petition to protect Patagonia’s Magallanes coastline here.

Calling on Chile to protect Patagonia from the risks of the salmon industry

More than half of the salmon farms in Chile’s Magallanes Region are depleting oxygen from sensitive marine waters, suffocating marine life. Civil society organizations filed an administrative complaint and a petition calling on the government to investigate and punish farm operators, and to enforce existing regulations. Santiago, Chile. Civil society organizations filed a complaint today asking the Superintendent of the Environment to investigate damages caused by salmon farms in the Magallanes Region of Southern Patagonia, and to sanction the companies responsible. According to government reports, salmon farms in the area are depleting the water of oxygen, causing a serious threat to marine life. The organizations also launched a citizen’s petition to support the formal complaint. “Salmon farming concessions have been approved in Magallanes without a detailed assessment of the impacts the industry may have on the region,” said Florencia Ortúzar, an attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense. “The damages are already occurring: a report by the Comptroller General of the Republic found that, between 2013 and 2015, more than half of the salmon farms in Magallanes created anaerobic conditions, gravely threatening marine life.” Chile is the world’s second largest producer of salmon. The industry, which developed on coasts further north, has now entered the Magallanes region in the southermost tip of the country. The pristine waters there are highly vulnerable to human activity. Magallanes has the largest number of protected natural areas in the country; it shelters such protected species as the blue whale, the sperm whale, the Magellanic penguin, the elephant seal, the leatherback sea turtle, the southern dolphin, and the Chilean dolphin. “Salmon farms are cultivating more fish than the ecosystem can withstand. They are filling sensitive waters with chemicals and antibiotics,” said Francisco Campos-Lopez, director of #RealChile. “Those chemicals, combined with the feces of the animals, cause a dangerous lack of oxygen in the waters, endangering sea life.”    NOTE: More information available at aida-americas.org/salmonfarms Press contacts: Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA Attorney, +56 9 7335 3135, [email protected]  

Protecting Patagonian Seas from Salmon Farms

Lowering Peru’s air quality standards is regressive and harmful to public health

The government of Peru has proposed increasing the legal amount of sulfur dioxide in the air by more than 12 times and doubling the allowed level of particulate matter, substances known to cause serious health harms. The proposal ignores both scientific evidence and the government’s obligation to uphold conditions that are suitable for human life and health. Lima, Peru.  Peru’s Environment Ministry has proposed new National Environmental Quality Standards for air, which would impact the health of Peruvians everywhere. The proposed standard increases by more than 12 times the limit for airborne concentrations of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and doubles the allowable amount of fine particulate matter. The increased limits ignore scientific evidence that finds these substances can cause lung problems and other illnesses, particularly among the most vulnerable populations such as people with asthma, children, and the elderly. “There is overwhelming scientific evidence to conclude that sulfur dioxide pollution poses a serious health risk, particularly when the contamination reaches high levels over short periods of time, something the proposal does not take into account,” said Anna Cederstav, co-director of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). AIDA prepared comments on the proposal that were presented to the government of Peru together with APRODEH. These pointed out that, contrary to the government’s assertion, reducing sulfur dioxide levels in the air would lead to longer life expectancy. This is because, among other reasons, sulfur dioxide also promotes the formation of PM2.5, small particulate matter that lodges in human lungs and causes acute respiratory problems such as bronchitis and pneumonia, as well as premature death. The government proposes to simultaneously double the legal limit for these extremely harmful particles. The organizations also highlighted flaws in the public consultation process. The government published the draft standard on Saturday, April 8, just before the Easter week holiday, giving only 10 working days for public comment on this critical public health issue. They also failed to make public the entire scientific and technical basis for the proposal. In so doing, the government has violated the rights to information and public participation. The comments also emphasize that the government’s proposal violates the American Convention on Human Rights and other international treaties to which Peru is a party, by failing to guarantee the human rights to life and health. While the proposed changes would impact Peru’s entire population, the residents of cities with high levels of pollution, such as La Oroya, would suffer the most severe impacts. La Oroya is an emblematic case because the metallurgical complex operating there—which has for decades been a macro-emitter of pollutants—is in the process of being sold. The government has publically acknowledged that the weakening of the air quality standards is an attempt to promote the sale of the complex. But it ignores the effects those relaxed standards would have on the people of La Oroya, who have seen significant improvements to both their air quality and their health in recent years. People affected by the pollution in La Oroya have sued the State before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in an attempt to protect their rights. For ten years, they have been granted precautionary measures due to the risk the pollution poses to their health and life; those measures were recently extended to additional people because the level of risk has continued. “Relaxing air quality standards to facilitate the sale of the complex and increase investment in Peru would be a setback for the protection of health and the environment, which could result in the State being held responsible before the Inter-American Court on Human Rights,” said Christian Huaylinos of APRODEH. “In addition, such actions would violate free trade agreements signed by Peru with the United States and the European Union.” Consult the comments sent to the Environment Ministry of Peru and more information on the case of La Oroya. Press contacts: Rodrigo da Costa Sales, AIDA, [email protected], +51 994767961 Christian Huaylinos, APRODEH, [email protected], +51 959 789 232